BIRDS OF PREY might go full GHOSTBUSTERS

BIRDS OF PREY might go full GHOSTBUSTERS

Margot Robbie has been working on BIRDS OF PREY for years now with Warner Bro's and now that they've hired Cathy Yan to film it for the DCEU...they are pushing for an all female crew, which seems that it will follow the same identity politics issues that Paul Feig's GHOSTBUSTERS reboot dealt with in 2016.

Re: BIRDS OF PREY might go full GHOSTBUSTERS

Talks about how it's "ok" to have female-centered films (like his approval is necessary), but thinks Batgirl should come out on Batman's 75th anniversary because she's not her own character, she's an accessory of Batman.

Thinks that the behind-the-camera positions should be a meritocracy, doesn't consider the different perspectives women bring to have merit (example: how Wonder Woman was shot in WW versus Justice League). Also creates straw man positions where the best people in Hollywood are turned down from coming to shoot the film when the film has no chance at attracting such talent outside of those interested specifically in the all-female crew.

Feels the film should pander to people opposed to female empowerment and not set off the "tinderbox" of opposition that would come from creating an empowerment narrative around an all-female cast. For the good of the film, of course. Also feels that a female empowerment storyline in the movie would inherently limit the film's ability to tell a good story, even though Harley's backstory is completely about agency.

Re: BIRDS OF PREY might go full GHOSTBUSTERS

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

Talks about how it's "ok" to have female-centered films (like his approval is necessary), but thinks Batgirl should come out on Batman's 75th anniversary because she's not her own character, she's an accessory of Batman.

I don't think gender really matters on this point. This is true of every character in the Batman universe, whether it be Batgirl, Robin, Joker, etc. They all fly under his banner, they are all accessories to his story. And when you work within a larger franchise it makes sense to leverage the most well-known and popular aspect of the franchise to promote the spin-offs. Anniversaries are good for marketing.

I don't care about the identity politics stuff so this was really the only thing I really wanted to reply to, but then I watched the video myself and felt the urge to play devil's advocate:

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

Thinks that the behind-the-camera positions should be a meritocracy, doesn't consider the different perspectives women bring to have merit (example: how Wonder Woman was shot in WW versus Justice League).

I'm not sure that's fair. It's not like he is suggesting having no women, he is suggesting not having only women. It's the opposite of the problem you described: limiting your available perspectives in the name of countering previously limited perspectives.

I'm not sure this is actually a problem, but I think I can see why he might think it was a problem. It's a very Lawful Good way of looking at the world, to believe that justice and equality should mean the same thing for everyone and that rules should be universal.

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

Feels the film should pander to people opposed to female empowerment and not set off the "tinderbox" of opposition that would come from creating an empowerment narrative around an all-female cast.

I think you are implying judgement where none is required (or intended). Let's be practical for a second here. His argument was that history has shown that doing X causes Y. Whether you think this is right or wrong doesn't matter if it is what actually happens.

I also don't think that pandering to them is the same as merely not pissing them off. People have all sorts of weird buttons that companies gradually learn not to push. Doing so anyway is a valid choice to make, but it would be unwise to ignore the potential consequences.

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

For the good of the film, of course. Also feels that a female empowerment storyline in the movie would inherently limit the film's ability to tell a good story, even though Harley's backstory is completely about agency.

I think sometimes we have a tendency to make assumptions based off of past experiences. I think this is just another kind of pandering that people have been bad at in the past, making people assume that future attempts would be just as shallow. I think these types of assumptions should generally be fought, but this is probably how they come about.

This might also merely be his subjective opinion because he himself is not interested in those stories. With the amount of him and hawing he did in that video I wonder if this might actually be the case.

P.S. His approval is irrelevant, but it's still generally required for him to get out of the way lest what he actually wants to talk about be derailed by misunderstandings or people who want to twist what he says to their own ends.

Re: BIRDS OF PREY might go full GHOSTBUSTERS

Originally Posted by Wool

They all fly under his banner, they are all accessories to his story.

I'd agree in general, but the context of the video is for her to be introduced in a later Batman movie on Batman's 75th anniversary and not in the Birds of Prey movie. She's one of the lead characters in the Birds of Prey comic, along with Black Canary. He's literally asking for her to not appear in the movie version of her own comic.

Originally Posted by Wool

I'm not sure that's fair.

I think it's completely fair. He argued for merit-based hiring but did not consider that gender could have merit in and of itself. He remembers the firestorm of controversy surrounding the new Ghostbusters, but he's already forgotten the reviewer critiques of how Wonder Woman was shot as cheesecake in Justice League vs. as a heroic figure in Wonder Woman. Funny how a woman director didn't treat her female hero the way a male director did.

Originally Posted by Wool

I also don't think that pandering to them is the same as merely not pissing them off.

Because mentioning that the crew will all be women is rubbing their noses in it? "Shh, don't tell anyone, it may make them angry!" If the alternatives presented are "don't do it" or "don't tell anyone you're doing it", yeah, you're pandering to them.

Originally Posted by Wool

This might also merely be his subjective opinion because he himself is not interested in those stories.

The impression I got was he likes the characters, but doesn't like the idea of any sort of empowerment theme with those characters. He would be more than happy to see Batgirl get paralyzed in some Killing Joke-themed Batman movie, as motivation for Batman (he did sound sort of off when he talked about the film not having Oracle).

Re: BIRDS OF PREY might go full GHOSTBUSTERS

Originally Posted by PPatty

If the goal of a trailer is to get me interested, then this one has failed.

Does it count as empowerment or representation if it was done to create sexual tension and a possible love interest? I was kind of young for the original, but I don't remember any lingering yoga shots of Higgins in that one.

That trailer looked okay to me. I'm not particularly invested one way or another, but I do think the action scenes looked pretty decent for a TV show.

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

I'd agree in general, but the context of the video is for her to be introduced in a later Batman movie on Batman's 75th anniversary and not in the Birds of Prey movie. She's one of the lead characters in the Birds of Prey comic, along with Black Canary. He's literally asking for her to not appear in the movie version of her own comic.

Oh, I see. That makes sense.

Originally Posted by Delores Mulva

Because mentioning that the crew will all be women is rubbing their noses in it? "Shh, don't tell anyone, it may make them angry!" If the alternatives presented are "don't do it" or "don't tell anyone you're doing it", yeah, you're pandering to them.

I think it's a little more complicated than that, but I generally disagree with the way these people behave myself so am not really going to push you on it.